Sex Ed Courses-Should Abstinance Only Be Taught?

[Polly]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/17/AR2007031701123.html

Polly

[Lori]

In public schools, no. I don't think it's the place of a school to push a specific set of morals on students. Having sex only within marriage is not something that all people believe is the only moral way to have sex, so I don't think abstinence only should be taught.

I also think that it is ignoring the main thing sex ed should be about, which is education. Telling people not to have sex isn't educating them. Providing them with facts about sexuality and reproduction, and with information about preventing STDs and pregnancy, is educating them. Abstinence is a part of that, since it is a way to prevent STDs and pregnancy, but it's not the only aspect, and leaving out information about birth control is leaving students at a huge disadvantage. Research has shown that abstinence-only doesn't work, either in preventing students from having sex before marriage or in reducing rates of STD infections or unwanted pregnancies, so I really don't see what purpose it serves in a public school setting. My same aunt who runs the crisis pregnancy center also gets these ridiculously huge government grants (like hundreds of thousands of dollars) to run around FL schools and, I am not joking, rip apart roses and stomp on wedding dresses while telling students that this is what will happen to them if they have sex before marriage. Perhaps it's some kind of performance art, but I see no educational value in it at all, and I think it's pretty awful that government money is going to that when all sorts of programs--art, music, sports--that might build students' self-esteem in real ways and provide students with productive alternatives to self-destructive behaviors, including irresponsible sex, are being cut because of lack of funding.

I do think that teaching about homosexuality has a role in sex ed courses, because some students will be gay and they do deserve information about how to protect themselves from STDs. But, I think that it should be presented in a neutral and factual way, just like every other aspect of sexuality.

[giana]

lack of education just generates ignorance...I mean in the very literal sesnse of ignoring something so teaching abstnence instead of educating our children would make em more vulnerable to early pregnancies stds and even child abuse...Ill tell you what this extreme moralism I see in the USA scares me deeply...If things keep getting so gung ho stupid moralist like this next thing will be a new inquisition...needles to say I live in the so called bible belt but being a foreign raised in a somewhat liberal family I notice it so much and Its very very scary

[Christine]

I think abstinence SHOULD be taught, but not as the only form of birth control. Clearly many public schooled kids are going to have sex whether their parents want them to or not, so they should be informed of the risks involved and that they have the right to abstain. BUT it drives me crazy when they use the term "safe sex" since there is no such thing. Abstinence IS the only totally reliable protection against pregnancy and STD, so it definitely has its place in sex ed courses.

[Jo]

lack of education just generates ignorance.

I fully agree with this and more. People need to understand the choices they are making. Abstinence only education, which is based basically on religious beliefs ignores all of the other pertinent information relating to sex education. As far as public schools go, I fully disagree with any abstinence only mandates. Teaching when and why to have sex should fall under the parent's guidance in accordance to their personal beliefs. Beyond that, the schools should be allowed to teach the facts. If you have sex, then this that or the other might happen. It isn't giving permission but instead letting them be informed.

[Lori]

Clearly many public schooled kids are going to have sex whether their parents want them to or not...

I've never seen any research indicating that any kids aren't going to be having sex before marriage whether their parents want them to or not. My reasoning for private schools not having to teach comprehensive sex ed is only because they are allowed to do whatever they want when teaching sexual morality, not because the kids are any less likely to have sex. I know that studies have found that 88% of preteens and teens who take virginity pledges have sex before they are married (which is basically the same percentage of ALL people who have sex before marriage, so the pledges don't make any statistical difference in reducing premarital sex rates), and I've never heard that those numbers only apply to public school students.

That's not to say that there aren't things any parent might be able to do to make it less likely that their teen will have sex, but the fact is that the vast majority of ALL people (about 85-90%) will be having sex before they are married, and that is pretty stable--as far as any research I've ever seen--between schooling settings, religious upbringing, and other controllable factors. Age of onset of intercourse seems a lot more controllable, but when we're talking about the average person getting married in their late 20s (with that age rising), premarital sex is not just about people having sex at 16, but having sex at 26, as well, and at that point, parents really don't have much say in the matter.

I guess that's one of the major issues I have with the idea that abstinence-only education will somehow cause people to not have sex before marriage. Aside from being ineffective, it really doesn't make much sense. A major part of why more people are having sex before marriage is because people are getting married later and later. Many of us probably have grandmothers who got married between 16 and 19. Mine were 16 and 18 when they married. That's the age at which the average teen today is having sex for the first time. Our grandparents were, in many cases, also having sex for the first time at that age, but they just happened to be married, because it was common to get married younger. It's not that hard to wait for marriage when you can be pretty sure you'll be married by 20, but when you know there's a very good chance that you won't be married until you're late 20s, it's a lot harder. There's never been any society in human history where most people routinely waited until 27 or 28 to have sex, and I don't know what makes us think that we'll be the first. We won't. If policymakers honestly feel that premartial sex is a problem that needs addressing (which I'm not sure they should), then I think they're wasting their time focusing on sex ed programs that just tell kids not to have sex, and would be better off focusing on initiatives to make marriage more feasible for people at younger ages. Polly's post about marriage rates being tied to economic status is very interesting in regard to this, because I do think that the economic situation of people in their early 20s has become far more precarious than it was a generation or two ago--at least in comparison to the economic situation of people ten years older--and that's probably one of the biggest reasons why people are putting off marrying for so long. But if premarital sex is a problem, I honestly don't see any way around the solution being supporting and encouraging people to marry much earlier than they are now, rather than just hoping that people will wait until they are 28 to have sex for the first time, which is not going to happen in the vast, vast majority of cases, and never has before.

[Christine]

My mention of public school kids was not to insinuate that they were more likely to have sex than kids in other school settings. I'm a homeschool mom so, to me, there are public schools and there are homeschools. I'm not concerned with what homeschooled kids are being taught, I already know my rights there. I was making the distinction is all.

[gr8mommy]

Do you mean a situation in which only abstinence should be taught, or do you mean should 'abstinence as the only 100% sure way to avoid pregnancy and STDs' should be taught?

I think abstinence should be taught as a valid option, and I find that far too many schools simply tack it on as a way to make some parents happy, or neglect to teach it at all because of some perceived notion that only 'wacky Christian fundamentalists' think that abstinence is the way to go.

[Christine]

See, I have a problem with that. It's NOT a Christian only morality issue. Abstinence IS the only way to totally protect against pregnancy and std's. Even people without my faith could agree with the science behind that.

[gr8mommy]

See, I have a problem with that. It's NOT a Christian only morality issue. Abstinence IS the only way to totally protect against pregnancy and std's. Even people without my faith could agree with the science behind that.


You do know I agree that it should be taught, right? :thumbsup

[Lori]

See, I have a problem with that. It's NOT a Christian only morality issue. Abstinence IS the only way to totally protect against pregnancy and std's. Even people without my faith could agree with the science behind that.

But that's not what abstinence-only is. It doesn't mean telling students that abstinence is the only way to fully protect against pregnancy and STDs. Comprehensive sex ed programs teach that.

Abstinence-only means programs that ONLY teach abstinence. No information about birth control is provided, and condoms are only discussed in relation to failure rates (often very much inflated). Teachers are forbidden from talking about birth control unless they talk about how it doesn't work.

I went to a school that switched from comprehensive to abstinence-only sex ed between my 9th and 12th grade, and the difference was just absolutely enormous. In my 9th grade class we learned about STDs and the ways they are transmitted and not transmitted, we learned about birth control and how it works and doesn't work, we learned about condoms--and even different kinds of condoms--and how they work and don't work. We actually learned things. And of course not having sex was presented as the only 100% sure way to not get pregnant or an STD, but it was also emphasized that, if you were going to have sex, you needed to have "safer sex" by using condoms and birth control that would protect you from STDs and unwanted pregnancies.

When I was in 12th grade, we literally watched videos starring Kirk Cameron telling us not to have sex, and then had an assembly where having sex with a condom was compared to jumping out of an airplane without a parachute. I don't know one single person who decided not to have sex because of that class, but I know a whole bunch of girls who had a very hard time convincing their boyfriends to keep using condoms after being taught that condoms don't work. Unfortunately, that's the result of abstinence-only ed. It doesn't delay the onset of intercourse any longer than comprehensive sex ed does (and may in fact delay is less), but students who've been through abstinence-only programs are far, far more likely to not use any sort of protection when they do have sex, I imagine because the idea that it is useless has been so ingrained in them.

It's not a Christian-only issue, because many Christians fully support comprehensive sex ed and some people from other religious traditions like Islam would also want an abstinence-only approach, but the idea that students should not be presented with ANY information about sex other than "sex before marriage is bad" is, as far as I know, a position only supported because of specific, sectarian religious beliefs.

[Lori]

Since I'm on a sex kick ;), I just want to add that while I completely agree with teaching that abstinence is the only 100% certain way to avoid pregnancy and STDs (provided that students understand that oral sex is still sexual activity), I don't think underemphasizing the effectiveness of condoms and birth control does any good. Birth control isn't perfect, but it works pretty darn well most of the time. I've seen statistics that women who don't use any form of birth control at all (not even very ineffective ones like withdrawal and the rhythm method) make up only about 10% of all women but account for about 48% of unwanted pregnancies and abortions. That's huge. If you could get that 10% of women who are having sex, not using any birth control, and don't want to get pregnant to use ANY form of birth control at all, the rate of unwanted pregnancies and abortion would drop dramatically. If you could get them to use more effective forms of birth control, and could get all women using birth control to use effective methods the proper way, the rates of unwanted pregnancy and abortion wouldn't drop to zero, but they would be a small, small fraction of what they currently are. Birth control use makes an enormous difference. It's not perfect, but it's really very effective most of the time.

The same is true of condoms. They aren't 100% effective in preventing disease, but you are much, much safer having sex with a condom than without it. AIDS is currently the #1 cause of death among African American women between the ages of 25 and 34 in the United States. In Detroit it's the leading cause of death among African American women between the ages of 18 and 34. That's just horrifying, that these women are dying from a preventable disease.

Most of the congregation at my church are African American women between 18 and 34, and a few weeks ago the decision was made that our church would provide condoms as part of their outreach ministries. I deeply respect them for making that choice. We can tell women to not have sex again and again, but if we know they are going out there and having it anyway, and we know that if they just used a condom, they'd dramatically reduce their chances of contracting a disease that could kill them, and we don't tell them that and make sure they have a condom, then what are we doing? I thought the pastor put it very well when he said we'd be refusing to be good in the effort to be righteous.

[gr8mommy]

he said we'd be refusing to be good in the effort to be righteous.

I love your pastor!

[Lori]

Yes, I like him too. ;)

It's just so sad when you think of things like how many people in Africa are dying of AIDS, and that there are still people who don't want condom use promoted there. It's just crazy. It's not a theoretical issue; actual people are dying every day. I think there comes a point when, in the interest of compassion, it might be time to sacrifice moral ideals so that real people can be helped. What good does it do to hold on firmly to those kind of moral ideals when people are dying all around you? Or, maybe it's that, if your morality isn't responsive to the actual needs of real people, then it just isn't serving any purpose, at least not in bringing any larger good to the world.

[Christine]

You do know I agree that it should be taught, right? :thumbsup

Totally. I wasn't attacking you, just the idea that abstinence is strictly a Christian moral issue. ;)

[gr8mommy]

I should have made it clearer that I don't think that, but many objectors do.:cool

[Lori]

I wasn't attacking you, just the idea that abstinence is strictly a Christian moral issue. ;)

I agree that abstinence itself isn't a strictly Christian issue. Partly that's because not all Christians believe that all sex outside of a state-sanctioned marriage is immoral, and partly because there are other faiths that have branches that believe that sex outside of a state-sanctioned marriage is immoral.

But, the idea that sex outside of a state-sanctioned marriage is immoral is a sectarian idea, in the sense that it is specific to certain branches of certain religions, and not universal. All religions have some set of moral standards around sex, but they vary widely. Some branches of some religions hold that sex within a long-term commited relationship--even if it isn't a legally binding marriage--is okay, while others will say that any consensual sexual relationship between adults is okay. Some branches of some religions believe that, within marriage, all sexual activity is okay, whereas some branches of some religions believe that, even within marriage, only sex for the purpose of procreation is morally acceptable.

So there's a wide range of views. Abstinence-only sex ed doesn't simply promote that students abstain from sex until the time that their own faith says it is acceptable, but that they abstain from sex until they enter into a state-sanctioned marriage. That's pushing a very specific set of morals on everyone. And, a lot of these programs present an "anything goes after marriage!" mentality, which would directly contradict the beliefs of students who come from faiths where sex without the intention of procreation is immoral even within marriage. They take the stance about sex and marriage that is popular among some conservative branches of contemporary American Christianity--that sex before a legally-binding marriage is immoral, and that after marriage basically any kind of sex goes, procreative or not--and teach it as if it is something that all families subscribe to, when it simply isn't.

Personally, the idea that sex is only moral within marriage is not something I agree with. I'd definitely prefer that my children wait until they are in a relationship of total, lifelong commitment before they have sex, but I don't think having a state-sanctioned marriage ceremony is a requirement for a morally sound sexual relationship. I'd resent my children being taught that the state has some sort of moral power over them, to make their relationships morally sound or not. I'm sure other people would resent their children being taught the idea that sex within a committed relationship that isn't a legally binding marriage is morally okay, as well. That's why I think that public schools should not be focusing on the morality of sex. Abstinence should be presented as the only sure way to avoid pregnancy and STDs, but not in the context of "abstinence until marriage," because that's pushing a set of sectarian beliefs that many people of many faiths don't subscribe to.

[Polly]

I didn't get a chance to post my opinion on the issue. (Elizabeth had to be put to bed and I hadn't gotten much sleep.) So here it is.

I'm not against teaching that abstinance is the only way to not contract an STD or get pregnant. Hey-it's true. I feel it's totally inappropriate to tell a public school high school class that the only "correct" or "morally right" time to have sex is if you are married. Yes, it's good to make a brief statement about the religions of the world that feel this way-a good teacher can have students volunteer what their personal faiths teach-if she/he directs the discussion in such a manner that all views are respected.

However, teaching an abstinance only sex ed class is a misnomer. The students are not being taught anything but the physical mechanics of sex and then told,"But don't do that until you are married." Clearly, in the abstinance-only policy they don't envision married people using birth control. Funny. How many US citizens grew up in a house of only two children? According to the last census, most of us. So either Mom and Dad called it a day when the second kid popped out or they used some kind of birth control.

I have already decided that when Elizabeth is in Family Life (Sex Ed), if the syllabus, textbooks, or teacher states that sex is only for married people according to the state education policy which dictates that this is the moral reason, I will be on the phone with the teacher and principal immediately. If a compromise cannot be reached with respect to our religious values (meaning all religions must be treated equally be the public school system.) I will sue.

Polly:nono

[gr8mommy]

The students are not being taught anything but the physical mechanics of sex and then told,"But don't do that until you are married."

Or they could simply say, 'but don't do that until you are mature enough to handle what can happen, and it would help if you're self-supporting'. :D

[Lori]

I think the other thing that needs to be acknowledged is that teenagers aren't going to decide to not have sex (or to have it) because of what their sex ed teacher said. In my high school, my sex ed teachers were the gym teachers. No offense to them, but the opinions about when I should or should not be having sex of people who a week earlier were leading my class in a game of dodgeball wasn't going to have any impact on my behavior.

Factual information will affect people's decisions, but teens aren't so impressionable that a one-hour lecture about abstinence is going to convince them not to have sex until they are married (and research has shown that's true) or that a teacher discussing sex within the context of a responsible relationship rather than marriage is going to have them out looking for sex ASAP (and research has also shown that's true).

I think that any time you start bringing in a time when it's okay to have sex--or what kind of sex it's okay to have--then that's crossing lines that are going to upset many parents. I think a problem is that schools try to avoid that by erring on the side of being as conservative as possible, not realizing that teaching that sex is only acceptable within a state-sanctioned marriage is just as offensive to the religious sensibilities of some parents as teaching that any sex between consenting adults is acceptable is to other parents.

I think that as long as parents can accept that, just because something is mentioned, doesn't mean it is either being promoted or condemned, then factual information about sex, STDs, and pregnancy can be presented without having to make any sort of moral pronouncements about them, because honestly the moral judgements of their gym teachers aren't going to matter a whole lot to kids anyway.

[Jbird]

See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18093769/ for another article, detailing study results which show the ineffectiveness of abstinence-only education. I agree that abstinence should be taught as one option for kids, but I think it is utterly irresponsible for anyone to assume that an abstinence-only program will prevent people from having sex. That's just absurd.

Proponents for the abstinence-only system argue that it is up to parents to provide further safe sex information for kids. Unfortunately, however, the kids who need that information the most are probably the ones whose parents aren't going to share it with them. In this day, with STDs and HIV running rampant (not to mention teen pregnancy and its ramifications), we MUST arm kids with the tools they need to keep themselves safe. I think this includes condoms and other birth control options, as well as arming kids with the talking points they may need to encourage their partners to use condoms.

Kids are having sex (and by this I include oral sex) at younger and younger ages. I've recently heard stories about oral sex at both junior high dances and on a school bus on a sixth grade field trip. I am certain this trend has nothing to do with safe sex practices being taught at school. We can't shelter them forever (or even until high school, apparently). As responsible parents, we can and must take the opportunity, as early as feasible, to talk to our kids about safe sex. And schools, government, etc., can empower kids, especially those with parents who don't talk to them, with life-saving knowledge.

I think this same reasoning applies to the HPV vaccine for girls. Why wouldn't we want to do something so simple to prevent cancer? Not only that, but what happens to the girl who does stay abstinent until marriage, only to get HPV from her husband?

[Kate]

Basically, knowledge is power, it's that simple.

Because of that, kids need to be given all the correct information on this subject.

As Lori said, most kids are really not going to take moral advice from their teachers, and that's where parents have a huge role to play.

But as I said before, knowledge, and from that, the ability to make a fully informed choice is vital. I think we have a lot to learn from the Dutch system, where kids are given comprehensive sex education. The end result? Very low rates of both teenage pregnancy and teenage abortion, with a total pregnancy rate of 12 per thousand, when looking at the 15 - 19 year old age group. (these statistics count all pregnancies, both those that end in abortion or miscarriage and pregnancies that end in the birth of a baby)

In comparison looking at the same age group, the Australian teenage pregnacy rate ends up with a total of 41 pregnancies per thousand, and the US has 70 pregnancies per thousand - and there are only five developed countries in the world with a teenage pregnancy rate of 70 or more per thousand, the other four being Belarus, Bulgaria, Romania and the Russian Federation.

I don't for one second think that has anything to do with Dutch teenagers being less fertile than teenagers from anywhere else in the world...so the answer to the low rates can only be education and lots of it.

Oh, and a couple of sources to back up my statistics...
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_teens.html
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2003/s917051.htm

[Lori]

But as I said before, knowledge, and from that, the ability to make a fully informed choice is vital.

:yup One serious problem I have with abstinence-only courses is that the idea behind it seems to be manipulating people's moral choices by limiting their access to information. But if somebody is making a choice based on false or limited information (when more and better information is available but is being purposefully withheld), in what sense can they actually be said to be making a moral choice?

The idea behind abstinence-only, as far as I can tell, seems to be that if you tell students that birth control doesn't work, then they won't have sex. Aside from being untrue, based on all the evidence we have, even if it were true, and somehow telling students that birth control and condoms don't work or simply not mentioning them at all made students decide not to have sex, how can those students be said to be making a moral choice? They aren't. If I'm not having sex because my health teacher told me that condoms don't work, then there's nothing moral about the decision I'm making. And there's enough free access to information out there that at some point, probably sooner rather than later, I am going to find out that condoms, while not perfect, are pretty darn effective.

In the same way, if I've decided that I'm going to wait until I'm married or in a committed relationship to have sex, because I feel that it's the right thing to do--religiously or morally or in any other sense--then no amount of accurate information about birth control and STD prevention is going to make me change my mind. Other things might, but I'm not going to go change my moral beliefs about sex because my health teacher has provided me with accurate information about the success and failure rates of various birth control methods. If that does change my mind, then my "moral" beliefs were based on false information, and they weren't going to last long anyway.